Stoops support SPADS, Sinn Fein sad and mad.

[glens abu]

Oh i have no criminal record and have no problem beating the way up the ladder in the ciivl service as am actually qualified to do the jobs unlike them freeloaders at stormont who couldnt manage their way out of a paper bag fore by run govt. If they knew what the f**k they were doing they woudnt need special advisors. See your part of the problem, general sinn fein supporters see no problem killing children or people in the cross fire to get their objectives, with the simple excuse they were doing it to us so that makes it right. But for right thinking people we know the difference between right and wrong, and killing someone is wrong no matter what way you want to powder coat it. Instead of giving it large to the SDLP what wrong with your buddies in the DUP saying both parties are having alove in and dont want to hear the vews of any other party

Paul Kavanagh will be grand, he will be parachuted in to some pseudo "community" job that is awash with public money.

Don't be jealous now Saff if you and Martin og did a bit of community work you might get a wee backhander

[Maguire01]

But there cannot be a hierarchy of victims.

I don't understand this idea at all. There absolutely should be a hierarchy of victims. As has been said many times, a paramilitary killed planting their own bomb and an innocent child who happened to be passing the scene - both equal victims? I don't think so.

Very simplistic but ignorant post, you need to research the history of the north before espousing this type of comment. Violence is not the preserve of just one faction. Partition came about through loyalist paramilitary violence.

I'm well aware of the history. Play the ball.

By your logic, Lenny Murphy, leader of the Shankill Butchers and killed by the IRA, is as much a victim as those horrendously murdered at the hands of the Shankill Butchers. That doesn't sit right with me.

Yes he was. The real point I am making is that the current position of the SDLP supports the notion that victim hood is the preserve only of those killed by republicans and that the sole blame for violence in NI can be laid at nationalist doors. It ignores the nature of the violence used by Unionists from the plantation. We all need to accept that victim hood is shared and no one has a monopoly on the commission of violent acts.

Well if you really believe that, there's not much point in discussing it further. I draw a distinction between those who were 'involved' and those who were just trying to live their lives.

[glens abu]

For the Shinners on here you can't claim that IRA men killing or bombing were victims of circumstances and on the other deny that others on the unionist side aren't.

I for one never claimed such a thing.

[Maguire01]

MAYBE EVEN WORSE? i didnt know what martin McGuinness advisor did to this week, but i like to hear whats worse that blowing up a teenager, too many men on her with the party blinkers on, catch a grip lads. I have met and dealt with gerry adams though work and got on fine with him although that doesnt mean i forget what he was involved in. Lenny Murphy was the lowest of the low, the last thing he ever was is a victim

RUC and UDR men who colluded with Murphy and his ilk can work as special advisers,because they never served a day in their lives as the state protected them.Paul Kavanagh took his war to England,got caught and was jailed.Now the stoops discriminate against him.

One of the SDLP's failed amendments was that the legislation would not be retrospective - i.e. it wouldn't be applied to those already in post - SF refused to support the amendment.

[Myles Na G.]

yeah Glens abu dont forget about the teenager he blew up, oh right sorry forgot Pauls the victim here. Who are the special advisers from the RUC at stormont and who up there do they advise?  Why does a criminal record affect my job chances going for a general job in the civil service for many a offense which aint remotely near 5yrs, but it shouldn't affect the bigwigs up on that hill. oh thats right we dont want to rock the boat

Look if there was any sort of equality in convictions, then your argument would be worthy of debate. As I previously mentioned, not even including collusion with loyalists, the British Army itself murdered over 300 innocent Irish men & women yet only four soldiers ever saw the inside of a prison cell. Four. All were on full British Army pay for the duration of their convictions. Two were released within two years, reinstated in the army and promoted, and the other two were released after six years.

Also as mentioned earlier, in 1972, in a meeting between Secretary for State William Whitelaw, the North's most senior British Army officer the General Officer Commanding (GOC) General Ford, the Deputy Chief Constable of the RUC, plus Lord Windlesham the British government's representative in the House of Lords, British MP's, and senior civil servants from the NIO, it was stated that

'The (British) Army should not be inhibited in its campaign by the threat of court proceedings and should therefore be suitably indemnified."

That month the British Army murdered 20 innocent Irish people. They murdered 79 that year. As I said, this doesn't include the hundreds more victims of collusion.

So while the level of convictions for a highly active participant in the conflict was almost nil, then this legislation is exclusive of a huge number of victims. As such it is divides victims, it prioritises sections of victims, and is bordering on sectarian. On top of this, the status of prisoners as political was recognised in the fact that they were granted early release under the GFA, so to pass this law, bizarrely, is to exclude them from a specific role in the political process. Even more bizzarly when it means an ex prisoner can't be an advisor to a minister, but can be a minister. It is a textbook example of bad law.

"The Governments continue to recognise the importance of measures to facilitate the reintegration of prisoners into the community by providing support both prior to and after release, including assistance directed towards availing of employment opportunities." (Good Friday Agreement).

That's not the first time you've used that statistic . CAIN database shows that the British Army were responsible for roughly 300 deaths during the troubles, so I'm presuming that's what your getting at. It also shows that about 125 of these were republican paramilitaries, while 14 others were loyalists. These were combatants, therefore, to use the description favoured by republicans themselves and therefore legitimate targets (to use another). Don't let the facts get in the way of a punchy phrase though. 

[Nally Stand]

The british never claimed they were at war. So by their OWN rules, they murdered those people. The number also comes nowhere near the hundreds murdered through collusion. Yet just four convictions in over thirty years (which is another stat I've used more than once but you seem disinterested in both that and in the evidence that the british army were given immunity from facing courts for their activities).

[Applesisapples]

For the Shinners on here you can't claim that IRA men killing or bombing were victims of circumstances and on the other deny that others on the unionist side aren't.

I for one never claimed such a thing.

No but many do

[Hardy]

The moral argument here seems to be parity of esteem and equality of opportunity for killers. "We want equal treatment for our killers with their killers." I suppose it's only fair, but forgive me for caring more about some 4,963 other injustices that are bothering me right now.

[T Fearon]

According to this morning's Irish News, Mr Kavanagh is to a £60k payoff if he is dismissed and a pension in excess of £5K per annum for life. Given that he will be replaced and with the new incumbent receiving the same salary, all funded by the taxpayer, it seems even when Sinn Fein "lose", they still win.

[Orior]

The moral argument here seems to be parity of esteem and equality of opportunity for killers. "We want equal treatment for our killers with their killers." I suppose it's only fair, but forgive me for caring more about some 4,963 other injustices that are bothering me right now.

Are you suggesting that we have to address all 4,963 injustices before we can move forward?

Part of that problem appears to be a complete failure by the (ahem.. well-paid) Victim Commissioners.

[Hardy]

The moral argument here seems to be parity of esteem and equality of opportunity for killers. "We want equal treatment for our killers with their killers." I suppose it's only fair, but forgive me for caring more about some 4,963 other injustices that are bothering me right now.

Are you suggesting that we have to address all 4,963 injustices before we can move forward?

I'm not suggesting anything.

[Nally Stand]

The moral argument here seems to be parity of esteem and equality of opportunity for killers. "We want equal treatment for our killers with their killers." I suppose it's only fair, but forgive me for caring more about some 4,963 other injustices that are bothering me right now.

No hardy, the moral argument here is parity of esteem for the victims. While one active participant in the conflict was essentially immune from prosecution (or to use their own term -  "indemnified") for their actions, then this legislation is a kick in the teeth to their victims. These are the victims which are already marginalised in a society where only IRA victims matter. This makes their suffering so much more accute and their marginalisation so much more official. Very few SPADs will be effected by this law, so aside from the fact that it goes directly against the GFA commitment "to facilitate the reintegration of prisoners into the community by providing support both prior to and after release, including assistance directed towards availing of employment opportunities", all it does is create ill-feeling among victims. It categorises and divides them. This law was nothing more than a stunt by Jim Allister. How many times have we heard it described as "a defeat for SF" or a "victory for Jim Allister" or "defeat for the SDLP". It was a political stunt, which (due to the tiny number of spads it will impact upon) uses and abuses and divides victims. Permitting an ex-prisoner to be a minister, but not to advise a minister says it all about this complete farce and underlines the petty political nature of it, where victims as a whole were a long way down the priority list for Jim Allister.

[Applesisapples]

The situation here is complex. I don't think anyone would say that the grief of a victim of an IRA bomb can be equated to the bomber themselves. However the grief of anyone who has lost a loved one is the same no matter the circumstances. We also have to recognise unpalatable as it may be that everyone here has a responsibility for the situiation we found ourselves in through the 60's 70's 80's and early 90's. That is not to justify the taking of innocent lives, but many were killed and injured on all sides. unfortunately we now have a situation where the Unioist view that the troubles started with the IRA in 1970 and that all paramilitary violence by loyalists going back over the centuries was legitimate because they run the state, and all violence from the nationalist side was reprehensible and without cause. This is contrary to what the GFA recognises. In that context as Brian Feeney points out in the IN today they have distanced themselves from an element of the agreement which they themselves negotiated.

[Hardy]

The moral argument here seems to be parity of esteem and equality of opportunity for killers. "We want equal treatment for our killers with their killers." I suppose it's only fair, but forgive me for caring more about some 4,963 other injustices that are bothering me right now.

No hardy, the moral argument here is parity of esteem for the victims. While one active participant in the conflict was essentially immune from prosecution (or to use their own term -  "indemnified") for their actions, then this legislation is a kick in the teeth to their victims. These are the victims which are already marginalised in a society where only IRA victims matter. This makes their suffering so much more accute and their marginalisation so much more official. Very few SPADs will be effected by this law, so aside from the fact that it goes directly against the GFA commitment "to facilitate the reintegration of prisoners into the community by providing support both prior to and after release, including assistance directed towards availing of employment opportunities", all it does is create ill-feeling among victims. It categorises and divides them. This law was nothing more than a stunt by Jim Allister. How many times have we heard it described as "a defeat for SF" or a "victory for Jim Allister" or "defeat for the SDLP". It was a political stunt, which (due to the tiny number of spads it will impact upon) uses and abuses and divides victims. Permitting an ex-prisoner to be a minister, but not to advise a minister says it all about this complete farce and underlines the petty political nature of it, where victims as a whole were a long way down the priority list for Jim Allister.

Well it's nice to see the SF technical group here exerting themselves for a full nine pages on behalf of victims. It was clearly unworthy of me to suspect that it was a sordid squabble over who gets snouts in the trough. Sorry about that.

[Nally Stand]

The moral argument here seems to be parity of esteem and equality of opportunity for killers. "We want equal treatment for our killers with their killers." I suppose it's only fair, but forgive me for caring more about some 4,963 other injustices that are bothering me right now.

No hardy, the moral argument here is parity of esteem for the victims. While one active participant in the conflict was essentially immune from prosecution (or to use their own term -  "indemnified") for their actions, then this legislation is a kick in the teeth to their victims. These are the victims which are already marginalised in a society where only IRA victims matter. This makes their suffering so much more accute and their marginalisation so much more official. Very few SPADs will be effected by this law, so aside from the fact that it goes directly against the GFA commitment "to facilitate the reintegration of prisoners into the community by providing support both prior to and after release, including assistance directed towards availing of employment opportunities", all it does is create ill-feeling among victims. It categorises and divides them. This law was nothing more than a stunt by Jim Allister. How many times have we heard it described as "a defeat for SF" or a "victory for Jim Allister" or "defeat for the SDLP". It was a political stunt, which (due to the tiny number of spads it will impact upon) uses and abuses and divides victims. Permitting an ex-prisoner to be a minister, but not to advise a minister says it all about this complete farce and underlines the petty political nature of it, where victims as a whole were a long way down the priority list for Jim Allister.

Well it's nice to see the SF technical group here exerting themselves for a full nine pages on behalf of victims. It was clearly unworthy of me to suspect that it was a squalid squabble over who gets snouts in the trough. Sorry about that.

That's it, ignore my every point and engage in snide, sarcastic, arrogant nonsense. It's what you do best.